Ex parte Snodgrass

• Docket Number: Appeal 2023-000734,Application 16/834,523,Technology Center 1700
• Decision Date: 26 January 2024
• Parties: Ex parte DERRICK SNODGRASS JR. and LATOIJA SNODGRASS
• Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board

1

Ex parte DERRICK SNODGRASS JR. and LATOIJA SNODGRASS

Appeal 2023-000734

Application 16/834,523

Technology Center 1700

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

January 26, 2024

FILING DATE: 03/30/2020

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL^[1]

ROBERTSON, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[2] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-5. Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

Appellant states the invention relates to bone structure replica devices. Spec. 2, ll. 1-3. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br. 7 (Claims App.)):

1. A faux animal bone structure and plant-based meat substitute assembly comprising

a bone-shaped structure, the bone-shaped structure being heat-resistant to cooking temperatures, the bone-shaped structure representing an animal bone commonly served in bone-in food, the bone-shaped structure being flavored as one of salt and soy sauce, the bone structure further having a shoulder, the bone-shaped structure including a shoulder portion, an elbow portion, and a wrist portion, the bone-shaped structure further including a radius portion and an ulna portion each extending between the elbow portion and the wrist portion; and

a plant-based meat substitute coupled to the bone-shaped structure, the plant-based meat substitute conforming to the shape of the animal protein coupled to the respective bone-shape of the bone-shaped structure

Claims 3 and 5 are also independent and recite faux bone structures.

Appeal Br. 7-8 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES

The Examiner relies on the following references to reject the claims:

Name	Reference	Date
Bomb	“How to eat boned wings!,” Giant Bomb, https://www.giantbomb.com/chicken/3015-1867/forums/how-to-eat-boned-wings-1436611/	2021
Baart	“Artificial ceramic bones for a natural meat experience,”	March 22, 2019

3

https://nextnature.net/story/2019/interview-yossi-roth
Adriana	“Seitan Legs with Crispy Skin | Vegan Chicken Drumsticks,” A Veg Taste from A to Z, https://avegtastefromatoz.com/seitan-legs-crispy-skin/	Feb. 22, 2019

REJECTION

Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Adriana, Baart, and Bomb. Final Act. 5-7.

OPINION

We confine our discussion to claim 1, which is sufficient to address the separate arguments made by Appellant with respect to the rejection on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

The Examiner's Rejection

In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Adriana discloses a faux animal bone structure including a plant-based meat substitute coupled to a chopstick, where the chopstick represents the chicken leg bone. Final Act. 5. The Examiner found that Adriana is silent as to the bone-shaped structure having the bone shaped structures recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner found that Bomb discloses bone shaped structures for chicken wings are known in the art including elbow, shoulder, wrist, ulna, and radius portions. Id. at 6. The Examiner found that Baart discloses that it is known in the art to provide artificial ceramic bones for a natural meat experience. Id.

4

The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to use an artificial ceramic resin bone structure as disclosed in Baart for the bone shaped structure in Adriana to provide a natural meat experience without the slaughtering of animals, because Baart discloses...